OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to be here to discuss H.R. 3932; the Presidential Transitions Effectiveness Act. Although the Administration supports the intent of H.R. 3932, we have concerns about some of the proposals in this bill. I would like to direct my comments to the three major changes proposed by this legislation: (1) increasing transition funding, (2) requiring the disclosure of private contributions and the individuals involved in transition activities, and (3) expanding transportation expenses. The Administration applauds the Committee's recognition that the funding provided for Presidential transitions needs to be increased. The current funding levels have not been changed since 1976. We agree that the combined limit of $3 million for transition purposes should be increased and that the proposed $3.5 million for the incoming President and Vice President is appropriate. However, I recommend a commensurate increase for the outgoing President and Vice President as well a total of at least $1.5 million. We would like to commend the Committee for including the provision that the funding allowances be indexed for inflation. We believe this will help avoid the necessity of amending the law in the future to adjust funding levels. It is our understanding that if this bill is enacted the first transition to be indexed will be the 1992 transition. We also note that H.R. 3932 does not include a section included in the Senate counterpart bill, S. 2037, which would authorize the General Services Administration to reimburse a major national political party committee up to $200,000 for funds expended on certain transition planning activities undertaken prior to the general election. Although we agree that the major party candidates should be encouraged to do pre-election transition planning, we question whether these pre-election costs should be paid for with Federal funds. We therefore support the exclusion of this section in H.R. 3932. The second area of concern is the provisions on disclosures of financing and personnel. As a condition of receiving Federal funds after the election, H.R. 3932 would require the incoming President and Vice President to disclose the date, source, amount and expenditure of all private money received for use in the transition. In addition, they would be required to disclose the names of each member of the transition team, place of last employment, and their current source of financial support. We clearly support the need for protecting the Government from individuals who may use the transition as an opportunity to attempt to obtain sensitive information or influence appointments for personal gain. However, we believe that administrative controls can be put in place to protect the transition process from potential abuses. Under current law and regulations, those members of the transition team that are employed by the Government are subject to the Federal ethics rules and penalties. Individuals that volunteer their services during a transition should be given access only to information that would normally be available under the Freedom of Information Act. We believe most individuals can conduct the business of the transition effectively without access to sensitive information. In those cases where it become necessary to obtain sensitive information, the individual then should have to become an employee of the Federal Government. The third concern is over Section 5 of the bill, concerning transportation and moving expenses for transition personnel and their families. The intent of this provision is not clear. If the intent of this provision is to authorize the transportation of transition personnel, their families and moving expenses on a wholesale basis, then we would oppose the provision. If the intent is to clarify that a person engaged in transition activities in Washington, D.C. and who is subsequently appointed to a position in the Administration is entitled to the same moving expenses that he or she would have received had they not served in the transition first, then we would have no objection. The intent of this provision needs to be clarified as the subcommittee considers this legislation. -2 We have one other technical concern regarding the proposed change to Section 4 to make the transition funds available to the outgoing President 30 days before the expiration of his term. We support this change as it will give the outgoing President lead time to prepare for his departure. We are concerned that the proposed change, as drafted, could create a one month funding hiatus between the availability of transition funds and the former Presidents' benefits. The language needs to clarify that the transition funds be available for seven months from one month before the end of the term to six months after the expiration of the term. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the Committee on this proposed legislation, but urge you to recognize that the incoming President should have maximum discretion to organize his or her transition. Too many reporting requirements and disclosure statements may only hamper an already difficult process of organizing a new Administration. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: that completes my prepared statement. I shall be happy to address any questions you might have. Mr. BROOKS. Thank you very much for a good definitive explanation of your views on that. We are going to have an amendment to take care of the 30-day operation, if you didn't know that, we have one to clarify that. I don't really think, it was suggested for 60 days, I don't really think that would be useful. I think if you know you have 30 days, as they do now, they could sort of get their planning in shape and while they are still on the payroll they can do all that planning and you know they will. Mr. WRIGHT. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. The 30 days before, they could start spending money, if they need to get a couple of extra people, start moving some of the people, they could go on and get with it, even if it was in California. Mr. WRIGHT. Wherever. Mr. BROOKS. An actual appointment, we agree with you on that. Our full intent is they get expenses only if they are going to be back in the Government's employ as an appointed official. Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. I think that is appropriate, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. Under the law, there would be more money. It is a good enough deal. On the situation that always develops in a change in administrations, where supporters of the administration fly to Washington at their expense, take a suite in the Madison Hotel and start operating and seeing what they can do to help, there is no way in the world you could keep account of all the expenses of individuals who come to Washington or go somewhere to a State headquarters. They want to work for a new administration and want to participate and do something. Maybe they don't get a job and maybe they don't want a job, or maybe they want to influence who does get the job. Maybe they want to put their two bits worth into a recommendation for an agency. You cannot keep up with those kinds of expenses. Nobody could. It is impossible. That is a burdensome waste of time to consider. But if they are going to be involved in the process, then you have some limited disclosure of who they are and what they are if they are going to have access to these records. I want them to have access to a pretty general broad scope of information. If you have this disclosure, you are not so worried about them getting a full understanding of what they do in the OMB. Some of the material you don't turn over for freedom of information requests. Mr. WRIGHT. That is right. Mr. BROOKS. You have a few little happy thoughts of your own that you don't tell everybody. You have to have somebody in charge. If I was elected President and I wanted somebody to go down there and talk to Joe Wright, I would want them to go and talk to him freely, not only with freedom of information data, but what you really think about how the agency is running, what you have been doing, where you made a mistake, where you botched something up, where you have done it right, where you are still trying to do it right. The ongoing program of what you hope to accomplish. In your instance, the improvement in accounting that you have worked on for years, it is an ongoing program. You would want to tell them all about that. That is not freedom of information data. You want them to have that information if they are going to make a worthwhile contribution to any President's decision. I don't think we are far apart. You are absolutely right about the expenses. I think they will probably spend less money as a result of this. Every President will know that he has that amount of money to spend. I think he will be less inclined to get a lot of outside money, private funding for a new study of the Government every 4 years. I just don't believe it will happen. I'm not going to preclude a President from having some private funding for some special project. Who would say it won't be a Democrat's prerogative, or a Republican's? I just think we have to have a little more faith in our Chief Executives. I think it is a bad thing not to. I have a couple of questions for you. Limiting disclosure, you suggest, might be unnecessary because it will be giving only information that they could get under the FOIA request? Mr. WRIGHT. That's right, Mr. Chairman. I'm not so sure that it is necessary, and-but more than that- Mr. BROOKS. Not for FOIA requests, but for any other information, I think we ought to have some disclosure, and if they're going to be useful examiners of A, B, C, D or E, F, X, Y, Z agency, they ought to have all the information about it, what you really think about how it ought to run, you know, and so why not have- Mr. WRIGHT. I think that's all right, Mr. Chairman, in most cases. In most cases you don't need what I would consider to be sensitive information. Mr. BROOKS. No, not Mr. WRIGHT. Or confidential information. But if you do need them, then I can understand what your point is. I don't have a problem with, for example, like Chuck Bowsher was saying, just keeping a list and limited information. I guess I do have a little bit of a problem of doing it at that time, and having to report at that moment. You simply don't have time. Mr. BROOKS. It takes 6 months. Who's got a list of what's available for information, available under the act? Are you going to divide all the information into two categories, what's available and what's not, before you talk to somebody that the new President sends down there? That's not going to happen. It can't be done. It really is not the real world. Now a couple of other things. We don't have a definition of sensitive information. Mr. WRIGHT. No, we don't, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BROOKS. So that makes it a little tough. Mr. WRIGHT. It does, but that has been, for most agencies, challenged over and over again. They've had to respond to freedom of information requests, ourselves included, and so therefore we have got a pretty good feeling of what sensitive information is. Mr. BROOKS. But nobody else does. Mr. WRIGHT. But you're right, there is not a good definition. Mr. WRIGHT. I would agree with you. |